Civ Pro Flashcards
Personal Jurisdiction
- State must have a LONG ARM statute authorizing jxn
- Must be CONSTITUTIONAL (minimum contacts); defendant must have PURPOSEFUL CONTACTS with the forum state such that it would be FAIR and reasonable to exercise personal jurisdiction over him.
- Defendant took actions that were purposely directed toward the forum state and from which the defendant derived the benefits and protections of the state’s laws.
SPECIFIC: for the complained-of cause of action; close connection between the plaintiff’s CAUSE OF ACTION and the CONTACT. Are the contacts related to the action? Did defendant do anything to put their product in state?
- FAIRNESS: must not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Consider
GENERAL: all causes of action; defendant must be “AT HOME,” essentially domiciled in the state.
- Burden on the defendant in terms of convenience in defending the action; will not prevail unless the burden to the defendant is “so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party is unfairly put at a severe disadvantage in comparison to his opponent.”
Venue
Federal venue in civil actions is proper in:
1. The DISTRICT where any DEFENDANT resides, IF ALL defendants are RESIDENTS of the STATE in which the district is located; A business-type entity resides in any district where it is subject to PJ.
2. District in which a substantial part of the events or omissions GIVING RISE to the claim occurred.
[Could be both!]
3. Fallback, anywhere where D is subject to PJ
Attorney Work Product Doctrine
Created by an attorney in anticipation of litigation. Protects documents prepared by PARTY / REPRESENTATIVE, e.g. acting as an agent of the attorney.
- QUALIFIED immunity from discovery
- Opposing party must show substantial need, cannot obtain the same materials without undue hardship, e.g., dead witness, materials taking shortly after the incident, “fresh” sources that cannot be recreated
“In anticipation of litigation” Litigation must be imminent, not theoretical
- Has a case been filed?
- Has litigation been threatened?
- Were attorney impressions / trial strategy included in the materials?
Claim preclusion
Generally, a claimant is REQUIRED to assert all CAUSES OF ACTION arising out of the SAME TRANSACTION OR OCCURRENCE that is the subject matter of the claim
- Once there is final judgment on the merits of plaintiff’s claim, which cannot assert any other claims relating to the same FACTS in a subsequent suit against the same defendant.
Aka res judicata. For claim preclusion to apply -
- The earlier judgment must be a valid, FINAL judgment on the MERITS
- Lack of prosecution (sometimes, unless court says otherwise) - The cases must be brought by the SAME claimant against the same defendant
- In same POSITIONS! - The same CAUSE OF ACTION must be involved in the later suit- Claim preclusion does not bar a claim by an opposing party! That’s a counterclaim.
* BAR: When the plaintiff LOSES the earlier case, claim preclusion “bars” further litigation
* MERGE: When the plaintiff WINS the earlier case, the different theories “merge” to prevent further litigation
** Constitutional Notice
Due process requires that the method of giving notice must have a REASONABLE prospect of giving ACTUAL notice.
- Posting of notice is insufficient to notify persons whose names and addresses are known. These persons must be notified at least by ordinary MAIL.
Discoverability of expert materials
- Draft reports and draft disclosures of “trial” experts are work product, not discoverable
- Confidential communications between such experts and counsel for the party are also generally protected under the work product doctrine, except for communications relating to the expert’s compensation or to facts or data the attorney provided to the expert.
- ID’s of experts expected to be used at TRIAL is discoverable
Discovery disclosures that need not be requested, must be disclosed
Initial disclosures
- Names of INDIVIDUALS likely to have discoverable information, even if they won’t be used at trial, and the subject of that information.
- Unless use would be solely for impeachment - Copies or descriptions of DOCUMENTS, ESI, tangible things that are in the disclosing party’s POSSESSION or control and that the disclosing party may use to SUPPORT its claims or defenses
- Unless use would be solely for impeachment
- Must only produce documents relevant to its OWN claims or defenses
- It does not matter who wrote the document, etc. - Existence of an INSURANCE policy if the insurer may be liable for the judgment.
- No need to show RELEVANCE to the claims and defenses of the parties / that the discovery of insurance coverage would lead to other admissible evidence - Computation of DAMAGES, materials supporting it
Diversity jurisdiction
For diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to be proper, there must be complete diversity of citizenship
- Complete diversity: each plaintiff must be of diverse state citizenship of every defendant when the suit is FILED
** Effect of JMOL / Motion for a New Trial
** IF doesn’t file RJMOL, prevents the appellate court from entering judgment. Can still do new trial, though
To preserve the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, the complaining party must either object at trial by filing a motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”)—which then must be RENEWED post-trial in order for the appellate court to enter judgment based on the evidence—and/or file a motion for a new trial.
- Ideally, both are filed to enable the appellate court to grant the appropriate relief.
. However, by moving for a new trial, the food company preserved the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, although it will only be able to get a new trial. (A) and (B) are incorrect because the food company failed to renew the JMOL motion, thus preventing the appellate court from entering judgment for it on appeal. (B) and (D) are incorrect because the food company properly preserved the new trial motion based on the sufficiency of the evidence.
The Erie Doctrine
Under the Erie doctrine, when a state law-based claim is brought in federal court based on DIVERSITY of citizenship, the federal court generally applies the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting.
- However, where a specific federal statute or the FRCP are on point, the federal court must apply federal procedural law as long as the federal rule is valid, i.e., Under the Rules Enabling Act, a Federal Rule is valid if it deals with “practice or procedure” and does not “abridge, enlarge, or modify” a substantive right.
- If there is no federal procedure law on point, and it is unclear whether the state matter is substantive or procedural, use
1. The “outcome determination” test: an issue is substantive if it substantially affects the outcome of the case; or
2. The “balance of interests” test: the federal court is to weigh whether the state or federal judicial system has the greater interest in having its rule applied
Procedural rules:
- Requirements for a jury verdict
Erie Doctrine Approach
- ON POINT: is there some federal law (including the FRCP) that is so on point that it conflicts with state law?
- If YES: apply the FEDERAL law, as long as it is VALID (Supremacy Clause) - NOT ON POINT: if there is no federal law on point, the federal judge must apply STATE law if the issue to be decided is SUBSTANITIVE. Always apply the state law on -
i. Conflict of law rules / choice of law
ii. Elements of a claim / defense
iii. SOL
iv. Tolling SOL
v. Standard for granting a new trial - NOT ON POINT AND NOT CLEARLY SUBSTANTIVE: if there is no federal law on point and the issue is not one of the 5 listed above, the federal judge must determine whether the issue is “substantive”
- Outcome determinative
- Balance of interests (state v. federal system)
- Avoid forum shopping
Even if the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are met, which cases will the federal court nonetheless refuse to hear?
Generally, federal courts will not take jurisdiction over actions involving the ISSUANCE of
- A divorce decree
- Alimony
- Child custody
Very narrow exception, case must actually be about issuance
Federal Question Jxn
Claim must ARISE OUT OF Federal Law, i.e., the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US
Federal law creates RIGHT to recover.
- How is Federal law coming into the case? If just defense, insufficient
- Cannot merely implicate federal issues.
** Forum Defendant Rule
This is the “forum defendant rule,” which has been understood to prevent a home-state defendant from removing to federal court based solely on diversity.
** Forum Non Conveniens
Federal courts typically will transfer (rather than dismiss) a case for convenience reasons under 28 U.S.C. section 1404 when the more convenient forum lies in another federal judicial district.
- A dismissal based on forum non conveniens usually is used when the federal court cannot transfer the action, such as when the more convenient forum is in a foreign country.
Grounds for obtaining relief from judgment
Left to the trial judge’s discretion, and, on appeal, her decision will be reviewed on an “abuse of discretion” standard.
Made within a reasonable time not to exceed ONE YEAR
- Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect
- Newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
- Fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party
Made within a reasonable time, NO TIME LIMIT
- Judgment is void
- Judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; a prior judgment on which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated; or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application
- Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment
ANY time
- Correcting clerical mistakes
** Is a PJ ruling appealable?
(A) is correct. With certain exceptions by rule or statute, only final judgments may be appealed. A final judgment is one that disposes of the whole case on its merits. Since the case was still pending after the denial of a motion to dismiss on the basis of a lack of personal jurisdiction, the judgment here was not a final judgment and thus was not appealable. (B) is incorrect because an order determining personal jurisdiction may be appealed (and is not within the sole discretion of the district court), but the order must be “final” (that is, it must dispose of all claims by all parties). (C) is an incorrect statement of law and the final order rule. The order must be “final” at the trial court level, not be potentially made final by an appellate court ruling. (D) again is an incorrect statement of law. The final order rule may not be circumvented by the mere raising of a constitutional issue.
Issue preclusion
Aka collateral estoppel, a judgment binds the plaintiff or defendant (or their privies) in subsequent actions on different causes of action between them (or their privies) as to issues -
- Actually LITIGATED and
- ESSENTIAL to the judgment in the first action.
- Issues in both actions must be the same
- Final judgment on that issue
- the party against whom it is being invoked must have had fair opportunity to be heard
- posture of the case must be such that it would not be unfair or inequitable to apply collateral estoppel
- The issue is deemed established in the second case without need to proffer evidence on it
Traditional “mutuality” rule: only someone who was a party (or in privity with a party) in the previous case can use issue preclusion.
- Requirement is not imposed by due process and has been subject to modification in certain circumstances to allow nonparties to take advantage of a prior judgment.
Offensive issue preclusion: courts have been very reluctant to permit a NONPARTY to USE issue preclusion to aid him offensively (as a plaintiff) to obtain relief, but the Supreme Court has upheld its use offensively by a nonparty where it was fair and equitable to do so
** Juror misconduct
New trial may be granted because of serious error during trial, inclduing jury misconduct under some circumstances
** Motion to strike insufficient defense / redundancies
(D) is correct. Before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted, within 21 days after service of the pleading, a party may move to have stricken any insufficient defense, or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Since the prior lawsuit is irrelevant to the current lawsuit, the purchaser should move to strike the defense. (A) is incorrect. A denial of the defense would be treating the defense as valid. It would leave the defense pending for trial, and evidence about the prior lawsuit in theory could be introduced. It is far better to have the defense stricken prior to trial, as it saves time at trial and prevents the jury from potentially hearing any facts about the prior lawsuit. (B) is incorrect. There is no indication that the seller knew the defense to be a sham, so it is unlikely that the court would impose any other sanction outside of striking the pleading. Absent any evidence of a Rule 11 violation, the matter may be best handled in a more direct manner by moving to strike the pleading. (C) is incorrect. If the lawsuit is irrelevant to the current proceedings, the purchaser should not add allegations about the differences between the two suits. Again, this strategy would be treating the defense as valid, which should not be the purchaser’s strategy.
** New Trial
May be granted because of a serious error during trial
Standard: jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence
- Judge cannot replace jury’s finding with own absent some serious error
- Jury verdict is not overturned lightly
** Recognizing a preclusive judgment
Generally speaking, when dealing with the preclusive effect of a judgment, the recognizing court should not give a judgment any greater effect than the rendering state would, i.e., the law of the rendering state generally controls the preclusive effect of the judgment
- When “case one” has been decided in state court, the court in case two generally will apply the claim or issue preclusion of the jurisdiction that decided case one
Removal
Under 28 U.S.C. section 1441, a DEFENDANT may remove an action that could have originally been brought in the federal courts.
- The federal judge does not have the discretion to decline removal
Required disclosures
All information then reasonably available that is not privileged and not work product
- Initial disclosures
- Expert testimony
- Pre-trial disclosures